A plausible mechanical explanation, on the face of the acts

This column is not going to guess at why. But there is a verifiable oddity in the enacting clauses, and it is the kind of thing that breaks an automated codification pipeline.

Chapters 123, 136, 179 and 180 all purport to amend “Sections 34-36.1-1.2” — a section that does not exist. The real section, and the heading used inside the same acts, is 34-36.1-1.02. From ch. 123 verbatim: “SECTION 1. Sections 34-36.1-1.2 and 34-36.1-3.8 of the General Laws in Chapter 34-36.1 entitled 'Condominium Law' are hereby amended to read as follows”.

Chapters 177 and 178 cite the section correctly. Whether the mis-citation is the reason for the gap is unknown; that it exists is checkable in one click.

What is actually in force, so you do not have to reconstruct it

Three acts, all enacted June 24, 2025, all effective on passage:

Remote meetings and the pre-1982 reach — P.L. 2025, chs. 123 and 136 (S 0509 Substitute A, H 5156 Substitute A). New § 34-36.1-3.08(c): “Notwithstanding any provisions in the declaration or bylaws to the contrary, the association may conduct regular or special meetings of the executive board and annual or special meetings of the unit owners by electronic means so that physical presence is not required.” All participants must be able to communicate simultaneously; physical meetings must be in the county where the condominium is located; and electronic presence “shall satisfy any quorum and voting requirements in the association's governing documents as well as the requirements of §§ 34-36.1-3.09 and 34-36.1-3.10.” Subsection (e) permits email notice and portal posting, but only with the owner's written consent, and owners “may opt out…at any time by written revocation submitted to the association.” The same act made owner-petitioned special meetings mandatory: such meetings “must be called by the executive board” for the stated purposes.

The master-policy deductible — P.L. 2025, chs. 177 and 178 (H 5585, S 0507). New § 34-36.1-3.13(k) requires unit owners, where the association insures the units, to carry “[i]nsurance for any amount of loss covered by the association property insurance policy but not payable under the association property insurance policy because of the application of the deductible”, with no obligation on the association to apply common expenses to a unit after a loss if the owner has not complied. And the amended subsection (d) makes the owner's policy primary as to that gap, requires the association to notify owners of the deductible amount when the carrier changes it, and requires the notice to state the owner's obligation to tell their mortgagee.

Mortgagee consent — P.L. 2025, chs. 179 and 180 (H 5586, S 0508). New § 34-36.1-2.19(b): a properly mailed request that cites the section and goes to the recorded mortgage address is deemed approved if the mortgagee does not send a written denial within sixty-five days.

And the 2026 acts are not codified at all yet

That part is ordinary lag and should not be reported as the same finding. But it has the same practical consequence. Section 34-4-31, the new grocery-store restrictive covenant prohibition enacted June 18, 2026, returns a 404 on the state's statute site. Section 34-9.1-2 still displays the private-easement valuation clause that P.L. 2026, ch. 341 struck out on June 24, 2026 — so on that section the site does not merely omit the change, it affirmatively shows repealed language as current law.

What to do about it

Cite the public law, not the codified section. The enrolled acts are published at webserver.rilegislature.gov under PublicLaws, organised by year and chapter number, and they are authoritative. The codified page is a convenience.

Check the history line before relying on any section of chapter 34-36.1. If it ends in 1982, 1994 or 2017, ask whether anything has happened since. For these four sections, something has.

Watch out for the reverse problem. Omission is obvious once you know to look. A section that still displays deleted text — § 34-9.1-2 — is the dangerous case, because there is nothing on the page to signal that it is wrong.

Do not assume a commercial database is better. This column verified the General Assembly's own free site. Whether Lexis or Westlaw picked the 2025 condominium acts up is a separate question and was not checked.

Why the stakes go beyond the inconvenience

Because three of the four affected sections create duties with consequences. An association that has not told its owners about the master-policy deductible has missed a statutory notice. An owner who has not bought deductible-gap coverage is exposed after a loss and, from July 1, 2026, at refinance. An association that has been told it cannot hold a virtual meeting has been told something that stopped being true in June 2025. And an association that abandoned a declaration amendment because the lenders would not respond has a remedy it does not know it has. Our Rhode Island insurance requirements page and our Rhode Island board elections page cover the underlying subjects.

What to watch next

Whether the Office of Law Revision catches up. The office publishes the public laws lists promptly — the 2026 list by chapter, bill and subject was available within weeks of adjournment — so the gap is in the codification step rather than in publication. The sixteen-member condominium law commission reporting by December 31, 2027 will be working from the statute; it would be unfortunate if it worked from the website.